Allahabad Court July 1976 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chabbel Dass and Co., Sultanpur Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All143
Hari Swarup, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order of the trial court dismissing the appellant's application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The trial court has held that there was no arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties in respect of the matter regarding which the arbitration was sought.2. The relevant clause in the agreement was in the following terms:'Except where otherwise specified in the contract, the decision of the Superintending Engineer for the time being shall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties to the contract, upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders, or these conditions, or otherwise concerning ...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Agrawal TIn Supply Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC172(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question was referred for the opinion of this court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the drums and tins made of iron and sold by the assessee were taxable at 3 per cent as wares made of any metal or alloy other than brass or aluminium or gold or silver under Notification No. ST-3126/X-1012(4)-1965 dated 1st July, 1966 ?2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee effected sales in drums and tins made of iron. The finding by the assessing authority and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, was that it is covered by an entry in Notification No. ST-2104/X-902(16)-52 dated 21st May, 1963, read with Notification No. ST-3126/X-1012(4)-1965 dated 1st July, 1966. The question that arises for consideration is whether drums and tins which are not bartan are covered by the notification which levies tax at the rate of 3 per cent on wares made of any metal or alloy other than brass or aluminium or gold or silver. This very noti...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. M/S. Agrawal TIn Supply Co., A ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)316
R. M. Sahai, J. - The following question was referred for the opinion of this Court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Drums and Tins made of iron and sold by the assessee were table @ 3% as wares made of any metal or alloy other than brass or aluminium or gold or silver under Notification No. ST-3126/X-1012(4)-1965 dated 1-7-66 ?'2. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee effected sale in drums and tins made of iron. The finding by the Assessing Authority and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax was that it is covered by an entry in Notification No. ST-2104/X-1902(16)-52 dated 21-5-63 read with ST-3126/X-1012(4)-65 dated July 1, 1965. The question that arises for consideration is whether drums and tins which are not Bartan are covered by the Notification which levies tax at the rate of 3% on wares made of any metal or alloy other than brass or aluminium, or gold or silver. This very Notification came up for consideration before a Bench of th...
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the State Transport Appellat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All1
K.N. Singh, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question to this Bench:'Whether under a scheme in which a notified route overlaps a portion of a pre-existing route there is total exclusion of private operators without there being specific provision cancelling or modifying the existing permits on the overlapped route, can the permits be so renewed as to cover overlapped portion of the notified route?'2. The facts giving rise to this-reference are necessary to be noted. Respondents Nos. 3 to 14 are private operators, they held stage carriage permits for providing road transport service on the route Muzaffarnagar-Saharanpur via Bamanheri-Deoband and Galgalheri. On the expiry of the period of their permits they made applications for renewal of their permits but the Regional Transport Authority rejected their application on the ground that a portion of the route lying between Muzaffarnagar-Bamanheri and Saharanpur-Galgalheri formed part of notified routes Mu...
Harichand Rattan Chand and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1976
Reported in: [1978]42STC361(All)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur, has under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act referred the following two questions for our opinion :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there being no separate category of Vim in any of the notifications the article known and published as Vim could fall under the category of the notification 'washing soaps and other materials used for washing purposes', being ejusdem generis to 'washing soaps'?(2) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative whether the assessing authority was justified in levying tax on Vim, it having been purchased from the manufacturers in U.P.?2. The assessee is a dealer in vegetable ghee, blades, Vim, etc. and the reference relates to the assessment year 1966-67. One of the materials sold by the assessee was Vim. This had been locally purchased from the manufacturers in U.P., viz., M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Ghaziabad. Washing soaps an...
M/S. Harichand Rattanchand and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax, ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)282
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Judge, (Revisions) Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur has under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, referred the following two questions for our opinion.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there being no separate category of VIM in any of the Notifications the article known and published as VIM could fall under the category of the notification 'Washing soaps and other materials used for washing purposes,' being ejusdem generis to 'Washing soaps' ?2. If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative whether the Assessing Authority was justified in levying tax on VIM, it having been purchased from the manufacturers in U.P. ?2. The assessee is a dealer in Vegetable ghee, blades, VIM etc. and the reference relates to the assessment years 1966-67. One of the materials sold by the assessee was VIM. This had been locally purchased from manufacturers in U.P. viz. M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Ghaziabad. Washing soaps and othe...
Gaya Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Etah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977All54
Asthana, C.J.1. On 13-4-1976 we heard this reference and delivered our opinion answering the question referred in the affirmative but reserved pronouncing the reasons which we do now.2. Finding that there was some conflict of opinion on the question whether co-tenancy rights could be acquired in an ex-proprietary holding in any manner other than laid down in the proviso to Section 33 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, a learned single Judge referred the following question to a Division Bench:--'Whether co-tenancy rights can in law be acquired in an ex-proprietary holding by estoppel or acquiescence?'3. Hari Singh, Kundan Singh and Dular Singh were three real brothers. Hari Singh died in the year 1946. Dular Singh had predeceased him leaving a son Gaya Singh, Hari Singh was an ex-proprietary tenant of the holding. It is not disputed that under the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, Gaya Singh could not inherit the tenancy as his father Dular had predeceased Hari Singh. Kundan Singh and his sons were...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Har Dahai Mal Gulzari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: [1976]39STC197(All)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The following question has been referred for opinion of this court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additional revising authority was right in holding that the appeal filed by the dealer should have been entertained even when the dealer had not paid tax on cane-crushers which had already been held to be taxable by the High Court ?2. The assessee, a dealer in goods of iron and steel and cane-crusher, filed its return for the assessment year 1961-62 and denied its liability to pay tax on the sale of cane-crusher on the ground that they were agricultural implements. The assessing authority rejected the contention, against which the assessee filed an appeal and disputed its liability to pay tax on the cane-crusher. It did not deposit any tax on the turnover of cane-crusher and when the appeal came up for hearing, an objection was raised on behalf of the department that the assessee having failed to deposit the tax assessed on the cane-crushe...
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S. Har Dahai Mal Gulzari Lal.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)317
R. M. Sahai, J. - The following question has been referred for opinion of this court :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Revising Authority was right in holding that the appeal filed by the dealer should have been entertained even when the dealer had not paid tax on cane crushers which had already been hold to be taxable by the High Court ?'2. The assessee a dealer in goods of iron and steel and cane crusher filed its return for the assessment year 1961-62 and denied its liability to pay tax on the sale of cane crusher on the ground that they were agricultural implements. The assessing authority rejected the contention against which the assessee filed an appeal and disputed its liability to pay tax on the cane crusher. It did not deposit any tax on the turnover of cane crusher and when the appeal came up for hearing an objection was raised on behalf of the Department that the assessee having failed to deposit the tax assessed on the cane crusher ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur Vs. M/S. Globe Engineers, Modi ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(All)0269A
C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench B) has referred the following questions for our opinion :-'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 6,033/- and Rs. 7,200/- being remuneration and house rent paid to the director were permissible deductions in computing the assessees income from the firm in which the assessee company was a partner for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 respectively ?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company derives income from manufacturing or processing of goods and that the rate of income tax applicable would be 50%.'2. At the outset, counsel for the Department conceded that the second question was concluded against the Department by the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Globe Engineers Private Ltd., Meerut reported in 1972 U.P. Tax Cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »